|
||
This Is Not The Climate Bill You Need To Fear
Whatever happened, it was bad. Cormac McCarthy's The Road envisioned an apocalypse that didn't kill civilization so much as render it insane. It was literary hyperbole for the sake of allegory. So is this.
Lawmakers in Washington: Please for just one moment pretend that the above scenario is possible, that you are characters in the prequel, and do the right thing on this climate bill that you're about to vote on.
You've heard it all before. We are in the middle of one of the largest mass extinctions this planet has seen thus far, and still people have the audacity to hope for profit over salvation.
I wonder--perhaps with Cormac McCarthy, perhaps alone--if this audacity will cease to govern the choices we make as a society when bands of erstwhile parishioners and plumbers and bankers and bowling alley attendants and suitcase salepeople and itinerant bachelors wander the streets looking for anyone who isn't "one of them" to bonk on the head and eat. I tend to doubt it these days.
The Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill--a.k.a. the American Clean Energy and Security Act, ACES, H.R. 2454--will likely get voted up or down today unless it's looking really bad and Pelosi decides to put it off for a while. It needs to garner 218 votes in the House of Representatives to pass. As it stands, there are a lot of scared politicians out there who are none too sure. Nancy Pelosi is doing a good job under trying circumstances. The whips are out in full force. David Axelrod has been clear.
President Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, delivering a stern warning on Thursday to members attending the Democratic whip meeting.
"If this goes down, it shows we can't govern," Axelrod said, according to one person in attendance.
No one wants to say it in the mainstream coverage, but truly, what is at stake here is an environmental Armageddon. If you haven't seen the movies and the interactive maps, you should. The information is out there, and it is clear. Estimates of the number of people who will be displaced by natural disasters or rising sea levels vary from 50 million by 2010 to hundreds of millions or even one billion by 2050. The number of deaths caused by starvation due to changing weather patterns and the inability of the world's farmers to keep up with demand is unknowable, but it is certainly in the hundreds of millions if not billions.
We are looking down the barrel of unfettered expansionism, and it is our own desire for more of everything that will pull the trigger if we can't break this carbon-coughing obsession with an obsolete and dangerous way of life.
Now to climb down from the soapbox and look at this flimsy reed of a bill everyone is fretting over like a nervous laboratory chimpanzee trying to please an implacable lab attendant. Egad. Farmers this week said they needed special exemptions. There was talk of trapping cow farts and such--all of which is fine and good--but much more talk about how the Department of Agriculture (famously backward-thinking and reckless about environmental issues) would have to oversee carbon offsets for farmers. Really? By the same token, I would like oversight on Waxman-Markey.
Few who are "serious" about saving us from ourselves as regards the wholesale destruction of the planet have a high opinion of this bill. This bill is not worth a damn when it comes to the problems we face. Sure it's great that some semblance of clean energy and "solution"-oriented thinking has hit the political mainstream. But again, are we really arguing about this? You want to make a difference, it's going to hurt people.
Sure money is tight. A solution will make money all the more scarce for families barely making ends meet. Everyone needs to swallow hard, and grow up a little. It is what it is.
What do we get for the expenditure? Not so much with the present bill. Maybe not enough. But still: Waxman-Markey requires that 6 percent of electricity come from renewables by 2012, and 20 percent of electricity from renewables by 2020. There would be a 3 percent cut in carbon emission by 2012, a 17 percent cut by 2020, a 42 percent cut by 2030, and more than an 80 percent cut by 2050.
All of this cutting will create a huge number of green enterprise jobs. Energy costs will actually decrease in the long run, but as mentioned already and mumbled over and over by Blue Dog Democrats who remain on the fence, there will be associated costs in the short-term.
Whether it is farm lobbies moaning about the cost of diesel and electricity--note they get a complete pass on the off-gassing catastrophe that is rising from their feedlots--or whether we're talking about lawmakers nervous about passing the expense on to voting citizens, we're concerned here mainly with a quagmire of self-interest and self-serving bias that truly endangers life on the planet.
George Lakoff rarely rises to the level of Luntz-like poetry, but here no poetry is required: Pay a lot now, or pay much more later.
The bleak landscapes of Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book are not that far off in the future if we don't get a handle on this problem. And while Waxman-Markey is weak medicine for a very sick planet, it's a whole lot better than taking the poor orb behind the Milky Way and shooting it.
Pass the Waxman-Markey bill please, so we can get a foothold in the mountain of a problem rising up before us.
from Air America
Follow Beau Friedlander on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BeauFriedlander
Jennifer Schwab: We're Still Light Years Away
A recent experience tells me that we have a long way to go before even the top level of architects and developers really understand how to design and build a sustainable property.
Daniel Kessler: Carbon Offsets Are A CROC
Carbon offsets often do not deliver promised results. The use of these sorts of offsets would not only give big polluters a giant loophole, it could actually increase global warming pollution.
Stephen Kretzmann: Money for Nothing, and Your Climate for Free
With all the hoopla about cap and trade, carbon offsets, and parts per million, wouldn't a good place to start be to stop supporting big oil and dirty coal with our tax dollars?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The planet is doing what it always has done: continue to orbit while maintaining complete indifference to its temporary and remarkably short-term inhabitants. In the game of pathetic fallacy, Friedlander and Krugman continue to hit the ball out of the park.
Yes, and the natural laws will continue to be in effect with total indifference to what we do.
Too many seem to be in denial about this.
Yes, and stewardship remains stewardship, especially since we literally shake the world.
Yes it is. It favors coal or solar, nuclear over BioChar, Big business over citizens. It creates yet another bankster gambling market for the big polluters to game the system for billions more from the taxpayers.
Rooftop solar is the cheapest power you can buy at 3 cents per KWH over 30 years at 2$ per peak watt.
No grid upgrade needed, though lower cost grid connects and standardized grid connects and payment for user generated electric would help tremendously.
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/10478
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research?action=profile
On the one hand, we were told by Barack Obama and the Democrats that we're in the midst of the biggest economic crisis in decades and we need to have this massive spending program to stimulate the economy. On the the other hand, they want to pass probably the largest tax increase in history (the above mentioned bill), which will lead to increased costs being passed on to all of us all over the board. And you want us to "swallow hard and grow up". Trust me on this Beau, there isn't any wholesale destruction of the planet going on, and even if there were, one country doing something to hurt its economy won't do a thing to change it.
The conservative idea that not destroying our environment is too expensive is so stupid it hurts.
"Only when the last tree has died,
the last river is poisoned,
the last fish has been caught,
will we realize that we can't eat money"
If this is the way most Americans feel we are truly doomed.
Oil Company representatives said yesterday that if this piece of legislation passes the Senate that they will be moving all refining and drilling operations offshore, as it will be less expensive for them to import the oil and gas than produce it here and be taxed on it.
This will affect oil prices greatly, increasing them by an estimated 55%.
Also Coal fired power plants will be taxed to support less efficient energy production that costs 4 times the price of Coal or Nuclear, .
This will cause electric rates to skyrocket, as Obama has admitted.
And it will not reduce C02 production one whit, as the carbon producing industries will simply move offshore, and take millions of jobs with them. Christ, we are calling a completely harmless gas something that so prevalent and necessary for life that human beings exhale it, a pollutant.
What happens when millions of Americans can no longer afford to fuel their vehicles, heat their homes or feed their families?
I never though that I'd ever be deathly afraid of my own government, but I am, as I witness the destruction of our freedoms and standard of living. How in the hell did we ever let this happen?
I agree with you 100% !!! We are about to sacrifice much of our financial security for something that still has many questions swirling around it. There are many who say that the "conversation is over', one of whom is Al Gore. If I was profiting as much over all this hysteria as he was I too would try to stifle more debate. Let there be no mistake , whether you believe in global warming or not, every initiative we have taken thus far is all about money. Unfortunately, almost every move Obama has made thus far is not in the best interest of the country as a whole. I did not vote for higher taxes, higher inflation, very high unemployment and governing based on an ideology that will be adhered to do matter what the results. 2012 I'm voting for common-sense, lol, I know I'm dreaming now.
Actually, global warming is only part of the environmental disaster we will face. But lord forbid you should open you eyes and see what your oil-companies lie about. Listen to you people worry about gas prices. Economics is a temporary state in human existence that we may not live though. You think this is not real, but you can't ignore it when you see it. You bemoan your sad dollar and fail to see death staring your species square in the face. An outside observer would never let our species off this planet! Would you want ignorant rodents ruining another planet. "Oh my, Oh my. My money or my life."
Water is necessary to life. Too much water and you drown to death.
I hate to say this, but Duh! Educate yourself.
I really don't know much about the bill. Repubs are saying it will cause us to lose more jobs to China, I sure hope that's not true. IIt seems americans are going to have to move to China in order to get a job.
If I were to bet on how the Earth destroyed itself: A) Global Warming or B) World War 3, then WW3 is a sure bet. I believe that sooner rather than later we're in for the "Big One" as we just can't get along and some country will do something stupid to start the war. And we're kidding ourselves if we think we can stop global warming because we should have done something about it 20 years ago. There are too many rich people who like the status quo who have too many lobbyists who have bought too many politicians for ANYTHING positive to be accomplished.
I fear MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138 Appalachia can't stand anymore of the progress and prosperity !
Why not? Precisely what, beyond esthetics, does the removal of the top of a mountain affect?
Semper fi
Poisons the water. ALWAYS.
"Let's pretend" a post-apocalyptic cowboy story is true?
Oh my... our worst fears are confirmed - energy policy based on comic books.
Why not pretend we all live in the Alps and sing songs about butterflies and rainbows while we're at it?
Would save a lot of hysteria over a trace gas that makes trees and flowers grow...
cj
There is a simple way to pass a "Climate" bill.
Keep all the subsidies for solar, wind and the like,
Merely do one thing.
Drop Cap and Trade.
Naturally, the Wall Street trader campaign donations will dry up,
But should not Congress work for the people?
Instead of pushing their narrow agenda aimed at preventing coal from being used as an energy source, supporters of reducing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions should be incentivizing businesses to reduce emissions themselves. For example, we could easily create a tax deduction for businesses that is based on reduced carbon emissions. That would let the free market word as businesses will absolutely work to take advantage of that tax credit to improve profitability, and it doesn't penalize consumers. We could also create incentives for nuclear energy, which does not produce greenhouse gases. This would create jobs, keeping businesses from moving offshore rather than losing jobs as more companies move offshore to more tax friendly havens.
OMG. The Republicans can't even find the entirety of the bill to read it when it is on the web and right in front of them on the floor of Congress. Get RID of these idiots. Don't they know their job is to READ the bills? Read them? They don't even know how to FIND them when it's in front of them. Hey GOP...there's this thing called the internet. Try it sometime. It'll help you do your job.
Before today, the bill ran a little over 1,000 pages. Early this morning, Waxman dropped a 300-page amendment into it. link: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/26/cap-and-trade-vote-today-complete-with-ap-spin/ How were they to read the extra 300 pages in the last minute? Just like the Stimulus plan, don't read, don't debate just vote now. This is how we want laws to be passed?
You conveniently left out how long the bill had been posted. And three hundred pages divided by the amount of staff those purveyors of "no" have on salary should make it a pretty light read.
I guess everyone can't be a Connie - and wake up at 3am and read 300 pages of technical material and then make a quick decision - but then, your mind is already made up, isn't it?
the "debate is over" for the closed-minded doomsayers...
c
They have help you know.... it's called staff. And it was 300 pages, not 3,000. You bet I'd do it for the $ and the perks Boehner gets...and without all the whining he does.
The only people pushing this bill are supported by special interests.
The facts are not in dispute, Cap and Trade in Europe is a complete failure and all it has accomplished is a transfer of wealth; emmissions have continued to increase .
By the way the USA has made the most improvement in total % improvement worldwide via Bush's program.
More importantly, to ignore nuclear power and offshore drilling is silly, if the energy independence argument is to be taken seriously.
To even think that we can accomplish any "earth saving" with wind and solar is twice as silly, since it now produces 1.5% of our energy use and is not storable currently or available on a reliable and daily basis.
The above is only important if Global Warming/Change is even a fact.
None of the primitive computer models addresses the sun, which by heating the ocean has the most effect on our planets climate.
There was and always will be ice ages and warming periods on mother earth regardless of what we humans do or do not do.
OY! I certainly hope you are a paid plant and not for real with this tripe!
Please be specific ......tripe?
Are you such a conspiracy nut that you actually think people are paid to comment on sites like this? Wow, I'll bet you wear a tin-foil hat at night to keep out the signals, too, don't you?
Semper fi
I think the real money is in science supporting AGW - scientists who don't produce the 'right' results tend to have difficulty getting future funding...
As you so succinctly put it, "By the way the USA has made the most improvement in total % improvement worldwide via Bush's program."
YES! Who could argue with that?
Unfortunately, nothing else you wrote makes any sense.
BTW, "factsfirstt", facts need to be, first of all, true. Otherwise, they don't qualify as really being......oh. never mind....
Again if you have a specific argument, present it.
Please argue with facts
"None of the primitive computer models addresses the sun, which by heating the ocean has the most effect on our planets climate.
There was and always will be ice ages and warming periods on mother earth regardless of what we humans do or do not do."
You realize that all the models of climate change first take into account natural phenomena such as the sun's changes, right? You realize that right now the sun is currently going though a temperature increasing phase, right? You realize that a temperature increase in the Sun results in lower luminosity and LOWER temperatures on Earth, right? You realize that if left completely to nature and the natural cycles of the Earth and the Sun, we should be going through an ice age right now, right?
"None of the primitive computer models addresses the sun, which by heating the ocean has the most effect on our planets climate."
Yeah...the "primitive" models would have to be really primitive to not consider the sun. The problem with considering the sun is that the output has not been changing since good measurements were first being recorded. Exactly what difference do you expect from the sun when the energy it sends here doesn't change? So, you comment means that you don't understand the current computer models.
Ice ages may come and go...any info you care to provide on when the next one is coming? Actually, there is something we can do to lessen the effects of an ice age....put lots of CO2 in the atmosphere...that will keep us warmer.
Innovation...you do realize that we wouldn't be in this fix without the technology to recover and burn all those fossil fuels, don't you? So, why can't technology come up with clean energy??? Why do we have to keep going down the some rat hole we find ourselves in?
You seem to believe we can't affect the planet with our human activities. That we can't kill every living thing bigger than a bacteria. Yes, species have gone extinct throughout the history of the planet. However, the rate of species extinction is going up and up as the activities of man increase. That's the truth, whether you can handle it or not.
Your assumption that the sun's output does not change is incorrect. The sun goes through up and down cycles which have an effect of our climate. Currently our sun is in a low cycle, with few solar flares, that will cause the earth to cool and will let us talk on our phones without much interference. Some scientist expect that quuiet period to end around 2012. The sun is infact a variable.
I do like the self-importance you have assigned to man. We are not the big movers and shakers of the wold of climate you would like to belive we are. We do have an effect on our enviorment(i.e. pollution) but not to the extent that you think. I am all for developing new energy resources but not at the expense of our nation. use our current resources to bridge the gap and assign the royalties collected by the government to reasearch and develope renewables. We are not ready to make the shift and would be foolish to do so now. Use all at our disposal.
In order for any of this to make sense from an environmental point of view we need to show:
1 - Increases in CO2 CAUSE an increase temperature (this has been modeled extensively, but I have not seen a credible mechanism that supports the fudge factors added to the models...and there is evidence that temperature historicall drived CO2, not the other way around.)
2 - The effect of CO2 is not completely masked by other mechanisms (change in Earth's albedo due to cloud cover, for instance)
3 - The reduction of CO2 emissions will actually help (and how do we define this?) the climate situation.
I am interested in tangible results, not good intentions.
Before anyone decides that the scientific community is somehow divided on this issue, you need to check out this list of scientific organizations that support the conclusion that man-make global warming is real, and a real problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Every single one you can link back to the original source. It's a long list. You'd get writer's cramp just trying to copy the organization names down.
Wow. The IPCC? Totally debunked.
The UN profits from "authenticating" carbon offsets.
"The IPCC? Totally debunked. "
Debunked by who??? Rush Limbaugh?
Wow, you found something linked to the UN and that's good enough to dump on the whole list. It doesn't take much to convince you, does it? Your comment proves that you have your head stuck in a barrel of oil. No wonder you can't handle the truth.
Actually, they are the most prestigious and trusted international voice on the subject, but I'll leave it interested parties to look them up for themselves to see what a nonsense statement you just made.
I take issue with the assertion that the scientific community is not divided.
I consider myself in the scientific community.
I have not found a mechanism that I believe will cause the magnitude of temperature changes that are asserted by the climate modelers. I have researched it to the best of my ability and with an open mind (and I continue to study the problem and will change my position if I find a credible mechanism!)
Between the conspiracy theories and the illogical arguments in many of the previous posts (my personal favorite "why worry about it now- let those 100 years from now deal with it"), I find myself wondering how many people here have taken the time to consider the effects of our current lifestyle. We pay countries that we don't necessarily get along with to supply us with non-renewable fuels that do have a negative impact on the environment. We continue to destroy the species around us in our quest to get to more non-renewable resources and to continue our spread because we have no interest in controlling the population (see sex ed. dissidents) or controlling ourselves (see any dump site). Every time the govt. tries to regulate our behavior (since we don't seem capable of doing it ourselves), those making money off our materialism pour billions of dollars (that we happily handed over to them) into fighting against those who are trying to save our skins. What is wrong with this picture?
you pretty much described 'insanity' in a nutshell.
You are correct- it IS insanity and yet so few seem to recognize that. It makes me wonder what kind of world my daughter will be inheriting.
The great narrative of how the greedy materialistic people don't care about the planet, just their money; falls apart when faced by the real "inconvenient truth." The planet's actually cooled in the last few years. http://theclosetconservative.com
Which planet cooled? Not this one. You need to stop reading that pseudo-scientific BS.
All of the REAL evidence points towards warming. These include:
- The melting & breakup of many of the worlds great ice masses.
- Ocean-wide coral bleaching due to abnormally high sea temperatures.
- Shifts in range of various temperature sensitive animals and plants.
- More frequent & intense hurricanes and yes, tornadoes.
And the list goes on.
BTW, conservatives are characteristically dogmatic, closed minded and ignorant to the big picture & how it functions; not the kind of people you should consult about science.
Everything. That's why we need to help Obama bring the change we need.
This energy bill is an opprotunity to do that which Presidents ... both Republican and Democrat ... have wanted to do. The costs may be high initially, but our energy independence would be of greater value. We would not be obligated to the energy black-mailers to solve diplomatic problems.
We would also slow down the inenvitable of fighting with the rest of the world over commedities we need that we wasted.
The initial cost is worth our future security.
Those who would trade freedom for security will have, and deserve, neither.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
